Stanford admissions - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford admissions (/thread-13650.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford admissions (/thread-13650.html)
Re: Stanford admissions - 82lsju - 04-07-2017
(04-07-2017, 10:56 AM)Class_of_75 link Wrote:[quote author=eric link=topic=16747.msg191331#msg191331 date=1491586414]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16747.msg191329#msg191329 date=1491585000]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16747.msg191327#msg191327 date=1491583385]
You haven't been to the new business school cafeteria.
BC
I haven't, but I've heard about it. I went to Stanford in the dark ages of the mid-2000s, back when we had to bike barefoot, uphill, both ways, in the snow, down Escondido to and from Main Quad. These pampered kids with their deck chairs and latte bars! :P
[/quote]
bah, back in the really dark age (1979-82) you had to go to LOTS to use a computer terminal, you had to schedule a time to use one........
on the bright side we were allowed to bring beer into football games :)
[/quote]
Back in ancient times (1971 - 1975), we used punch cards to submit our comp sci projects.
[/quote]
I used punch cards by freshman year (1978-79) at Georgia Tech, you really did not want to drop a deck of cards.....
my sophomore year in Serra house one of my dorm mates bought a terminal and put it in his room and had dial-in access to LOTS.....he was one of the crew who built an antenna for the roof of the dorm to get HBO for free when it was still being broadcast over the air unencrypted from I think Black Mountain
Re: Stanford admissions - CornFed - 04-07-2017
(04-07-2017, 10:59 AM)eric link Wrote:[quote author=Class_of_75 link=topic=16747.msg191332#msg191332 date=1491587816]
[quote author=eric link=topic=16747.msg191331#msg191331 date=1491586414]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16747.msg191329#msg191329 date=1491585000]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16747.msg191327#msg191327 date=1491583385]
You haven't been to the new business school cafeteria.
BC
I haven't, but I've heard about it. I went to Stanford in the dark ages of the mid-2000s, back when we had to bike barefoot, uphill, both ways, in the snow, down Escondido to and from Main Quad. These pampered kids with their deck chairs and latte bars! :P
[/quote]
bah, back in the really dark age (1979-82) you had to go to LOTS to use a computer terminal, you had to schedule a time to use one........
on the bright side we were allowed to bring beer into football games :)
[/quote]
Back in ancient times (1971 - 1975), we used punch cards to submit our comp sci projects.
[/quote]
I used punch cards by freshman year (1978-79) at Georgia Tech, you really did not want to drop a deck of cards.....
my sophomore year in Serra house one of my dorm mates bought a terminal and put it in his room and had dial-in access to LOTS.....he was one of the crew who built an antenna for the roof of the dorm to get HBO for free when it was still being broadcast over the air unencrypted from I think Black Mountain
[/quote]
Something like two boxes of punch cards to draw a freaking hourglass!!!! (Or something like that.)
Re: Stanford admissions - Stymie - 04-07-2017
In the 60's we had to write essays on palimpsests......
Re: Stanford admissions - Goose - 04-07-2017
(04-07-2017, 12:36 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=eric link=topic=16747.msg191334#msg191334 date=1491587987]
[quote author=Class_of_75 link=topic=16747.msg191332#msg191332 date=1491587816]
[quote author=eric link=topic=16747.msg191331#msg191331 date=1491586414]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16747.msg191329#msg191329 date=1491585000]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16747.msg191327#msg191327 date=1491583385]
You haven't been to the new business school cafeteria.
BC
I haven't, but I've heard about it. I went to Stanford in the dark ages of the mid-2000s, back when we had to bike barefoot, uphill, both ways, in the snow, down Escondido to and from Main Quad. These pampered kids with their deck chairs and latte bars! :P
[/quote]
bah, back in the really dark age (1979-82) you had to go to LOTS to use a computer terminal, you had to schedule a time to use one........
on the bright side we were allowed to bring beer into football games :)
[/quote]
Back in ancient times (1971 - 1975), we used punch cards to submit our comp sci projects.
[/quote]
I used punch cards by freshman year (1978-79) at Georgia Tech, you really did not want to drop a deck of cards.....
my sophomore year in Serra house one of my dorm mates bought a terminal and put it in his room and had dial-in access to LOTS.....he was one of the crew who built an antenna for the roof of the dorm to get HBO for free when it was still being broadcast over the air unencrypted from I think Black Mountain
[/quote]
Something like two boxes of punch cards to draw a freaking hourglass!!!! (Or something like that.)
[/quote]
WOW! was only 2/3 of a box, but was very popular.
Re: Stanford admissions - jacketree - 04-08-2017
Ah yes, punch cards. We used those back in high school. I was very lucky at GT to only have a handful of classes that required any programming and the requisite trip to the ICS building to wait in line to use one of the teletype machines; and then return a day later to see complete failure in green and white out of another line waiting for the bin. So your anecdote Eric made me think of the most epic day in the history of the ICS building when sometime around noon a bunch of us were in failure lines and some dude just snapped. Threw one of the teletypes right through that plate glass window.
By my senior year, technology had advanced to the point where the teletype interface was optional; now we could wait in a line to use something called "a personal computer," with a woefully inadequate supply of them stashed somewhere in the library IIRC. I stuck with my trusty Olivetti with the busted "q" and a bottle of white-out.
I love legacy software. When some of the hydraulic models we used migrated from mainframes to DOS, the terms "card" and "deck" persisted. Now that everything is windows and graphically (GIS) based, the young kids look at me like I'm an idiot when I ask them where they stored their "existing conditions deck."
Re: Stanford admissions - Stymie - 04-08-2017
I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons. I do not plan to be involved further.
Re: Stanford admissions - JJJ - 04-08-2017
(04-08-2017, 07:10 PM)Stymie link Wrote:I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons. I do not plan to be involved further.I don't know your many reasons, but I was just thinking the same thing today.
My trigger was the admit reception to try to convince them that they should choose Stanford. I get it, but I don't.
Re: Stanford admissions - 2006alum - 04-09-2017
(04-08-2017, 07:10 PM)Stymie link Wrote:I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons. I do not plan to be involved further.Apart from twitter hashtags as admission essays, what else? As someone who has never been involved but has read a lot about the madness from the sidelines, I would be curious to hear more.
Re: Stanford admissions - Mick - 04-09-2017
(04-08-2017, 07:10 PM)Stymie link Wrote:I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons. I do not plan to be involved further.
Why has Stanford Admissions "Jumped the Shark?"
Re: Stanford admissions - Stymie - 04-09-2017
(04-09-2017, 03:47 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Stymie link=topic=16747.msg191396#msg191396 date=1491703813]
I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons. I do not plan to be involved further.
Why has Stanford Admissions "Jumped the Shark?"
[/quote]
Firstly, I am not a paid cog in the admissions machineâjust a volunteer who has interviewed 35-40 applicants over the past 7 years, primarily from Europe, all of whom were impressive in their own way. Of the 35-40, 3 were admitted (of which 2 enrolled) and 4 ended up on the joke that is the âwaitingâ list. To me there was no significant separation in the top half of people I had the privilege of interviewing and those who were admitted. Aiming blindfolded towards the center of a Bristish dart board with my top 20 people on it would have achieved as good results as what the Admissions Office came up with. I am also sure that amongst the bottom half of my âpoolâ there were more than a few applicants who could have become stars at Stanford, if given the chance.
As for âjumping the shark,â I see it as when the Ahabesque obsession of getting a lower admit and higher enrolled rate than Harvard began. Probably 10 years or so ago, when it seemed to become possible. Added to that has been the creeping commodification of âdiversityâ where every admit has to be not just unique (as we all are) but REALLY UNIQUE in order to be admitted. The current mission of the Admissions office seems to be to âTerraformâ a class of REALLY UNIQUE people into an indistinguishable commodity known as âThe Class of 20XX.â Within this meme, we can give special admission props to legacies, children of the glitterati and elite athletes, most of whom would not be admitted in a truly democratic process.
More personally, as an interviewer you get the privilege of meeting with incredibly talented young people, 97+% of whom will never be able to experience their dream school, aka LSJU. Why 97+%? Well, this year we admitted 721 people on ED, which means that of the 44,073 who applied and were in the April Foolâs pool was only 3% (1329/44,073). Add in the elite athletes, the Children of the Glitterati and the legacies who were accepted and the chances of admission for the Plebs are far closer to 1 out of 40 than 1 out of 20. Given this, as an interviewer I am much more a Miss Lonelyhearts than a game changer. I can spend my time more productively elsewhere.
Re: Stanford admissions - oldalum - 04-09-2017
I think it is generally true that alumni interviews are not considered by admission officers for highly selective schools unless they are at great variance with the rest of the application, in which case they raise questions. They are basically used to increase yield by allowing applicants to interact with alums who have great loyalty to the institution. A friend of mine stopped interviewing for a different highly selective school because almost no one he interviewed was accepted, and the few who did were his least favorite applicants as people. It is truly an unproductive use of time unless one just enjoys getting to meet some impressive high school seniors.
As one admission officer once said (I forgot where), each year we get 10,000 applicants who we would be happy to admit, and we could admit any of the 5 subgroups of 2,000 and get the same great student body.
I don't understand why Stanford is aiming to get the lowest acceptance rate, if it is. What benefit is there to that?
Re: Stanford admissions - Mick - 04-09-2017
(04-09-2017, 06:22 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=16747.msg191410#msg191410 date=1491734865]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=16747.msg191396#msg191396 date=1491703813]
I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons. I do not plan to be involved further.
Why has Stanford Admissions "Jumped the Shark?"
[/quote]
Firstly, I am not a paid cog in the admissions machinejust a volunteer who has interviewed 35-40 applicants over the past 7 years, primarily from Europe, all of whom were impressive in their own way. Of the 35-40, 3 were admitted (of which 2 enrolled) and 4 ended up on the joke that is the waiting list. To me there was no significant separation in the top half of people I had the privilege of interviewing and those who were admitted. Aiming blindfolded towards the center of a Bristish dart board with my top 20 people on it would have achieved as good results as what the Admissions Office came up with. I am also sure that amongst the bottom half of my pool there were more than a few applicants who could have become stars at Stanford, if given the chance.
As for jumping the shark, I see it as when the Ahabesque obsession of getting a lower admit and higher enrolled rate than Harvard began. Probably 10 years or so ago, when it seemed to become possible. Added to that has been the creeping commodification of diversity where every admit has to be not just unique (as we all are) but REALLY UNIQUE in order to be admitted. The current mission of the Admissions office seems to be to Terraform a class of REALLY UNIQUE people into an indistinguishable commodity known as The Class of 20XX. Within this meme, we can give special admission props to legacies, children of the glitterati and elite athletes, most of whom would not be admitted in a truly democratic process.
More personally, as an interviewer you get the privilege of meeting with incredibly talented young people, 97+% of whom will never be able to experience their dream school, aka LSJU. Why 97+%? Well, this year we admitted 721 people on ED, which means that of the 44,073 who applied and were in the April Fools pool was only 3% (1329/44,073). Add in the elite athletes, the Children of the Glitterati and the legacies who were accepted and the chances of admission for the Plebs are far closer to 1 out of 40 than 1 out of 20. Given this, as an interviewer I am much more a Miss Lonelyhearts than a game changer. I can spend my time more productively elsewhere.
[/quote]
Would you be in favor of doubling or trebling class size?
Re: Stanford admissions - Mick - 04-09-2017
(04-09-2017, 09:00 AM)oldalum link Wrote:I think it is generally true that alumni interviews are not considered by admission officers for highly selective schools unless they are at great variance with the rest of the application, in which case they raise questions. They are basically used to increase yield by allowing applicants to interact with alums who have great loyalty to the institution. A friend of mine stopped interviewing for a different highly selective school because almost no one he interviewed was accepted, and the few who did were his least favorite applicants as people. It is truly an unproductive use of time unless one just enjoys getting to meet some impressive high school seniors.
As one admission officer once said (I forgot where), each year we get 10,000 applicants who we would be happy to admit, and we could admit any of the 5 subgroups of 2,000 and get the same great student body.
I don't understand why Stanford is aiming to get the lowest acceptance rate, if it is. What benefit is there to that?
Bragging rights.
Re: Stanford admissions - Stymie - 04-09-2017
Thanks oldalum. You reinforce my thoughts and experience. As for aiming for lower acceptance rates, it's just part of the long time organizational concept of "building the brand." That being conceded, Stanford is very much more than a "brand." Hopefully, the Admissions Office and the higher powers that be understand that. I'm not yet sure that this is true.
Stymie
PS--I am very pleased to see that our new Prexy (Hyphen-Lavigne) seems to get the beauty of the Band. Maybe there is hope for our beloved LSJU.
rfg
Re: Stanford admissions - Stymie - 04-09-2017
(04-09-2017, 10:54 AM)Mick link Wrote:[Would you be in favor of doubling or trebling class size?
In a nutshell, Yes!
Assuming that we have comparable satellite campuses and MUCH better than now digital, analog and humanoid communication systems to link all the campuses together. The latter is the key.
Re: Stanford admissions - 82lsju - 04-09-2017
my recollection is the last time the idea of increasing undergrad class size was floated in 2013
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/06/04/plan-to-grow-undergrad-population-to-affect-faculty-housing/
it wasn't very popular
Re: Stanford admissions - Stymie - 04-09-2017
(04-09-2017, 12:17 PM)eric link Wrote:my recollection is the last time the idea of increasing undergrad class size was floated in 2013
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/06/04/plan-to-grow-undergrad-population-to-affect-faculty-housing/
it wasn't very popular
It was due to an unexpectedly brobdingnagian rise in yield. Exy Prexy Hennesexy said so to me and others who met with him in London in 2013.
Re: Stanford admissions - Spiny_Norman - 04-09-2017
I was at a conference at Stanford this week which included a meeting with Marc T-L. He said that the undergrad entering class will be rising by several hundred over the next few years in conjunction with the construction of more undergrad housing, mostly on the west side of campus.
Re: Stanford admissions - Treebound - 04-09-2017
Hennessy and now MTL have both signaled that Stanford would be growing its undergrad class size slowly, over time. As mentioned previously, one of the key issues is housing and the brutal process the university has to go through to get new development approved by Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Hennessy when asked, stated that that process was something he would happily leave to MTL.
As for bragging rights on the acceptance rate, I think the University has downplayed it over the last two years, whereas it was something that was trumpeted before that when my oldest was admitted in 2015. Having gone through the process with two kids now (my second child is a high school senior), including the east coast college tours, I think the Ivies are working hard to catch up to Stanford's perceived leadership in Engineering, CS and STEM. Many of those schools have undergone or are undergoing significant improvements in those facilities given the pull that Stanford and Silicon Valley currently has. Interestingly, at LSJU, the concern emerging is that too many students are focused on Engineering/CS.
As for the LSJUMB, they are back and should be much more visible this quarter, so says my "bones section" son. Kudos to Etch and Hennessy on getting them back on track. All Right Now!
Re: Stanford admissions - JohnR34231 - 04-10-2017
Interesting that while Silicon Valley is moaning and groaning about a shortage of CS/Engineering types, Stanford is worried about too many students being focused on those subjects.